Grace & Knowledge

Posted By Brett on July 11, 2011

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. [32] And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” [33] And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” [34] And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [35] For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35 ESV)

Looking at Mark 3 we see how Jesus turned the world of these Jews upside down. Family meant everything. Being an Israelite meant everything. There was great pride in being part of a certain tribe. The family, your blood relationships, meant everything. Jesus took them for a spin when he redefined the family as those who do the will of the God.
This was, and still is a fairly radical teaching. There is a saying that blood is thicker than water. But Jesus says otherwise. Through the waters of baptism we signify that we have joined the family of God whose bond is close than that of your physical family. Is that how you view the people sitting next to you? Do you view them as closer than your physical family? Do you see how shocking that is?
Ideally your physical family will also be believers and so be your spiritual family too. But let me just challenge you to think about one another as real brothers and sisters. Real family.
I believe that the first century church took this to heart because we see that it was almost the norm that they referred to one another as “brother.” 1 Tim 5 talks about how we should treat the older women in the church as mothers and the younger women in the church as sisters.

I want to create a church of real community and real family and real fellowship. Part of how we do that is through the words we use. The way the church has been speaking, for several decades now, concerns me. We are filling this space with less-than-biblical air. When we keep breathing less-than-biblical air, it gets into our lungs and into our bloodstream.
It makes me nervous when I hear pastors talking about being a CEO. That kind of thing just doesn’t compute. Since scripture regularly refers to the church as a family and regularly uses familial terms, we should think along those lines. At home I am not pursuing a career as a father and a husband. It is a calling, not a career. I am called to be a husband and a father. It would just be weird if my children referred to me as their division president. It would be odd for my wife to refer to me as her CEO. That’s not who I am. I am a husband and a father. My wife takes care of the finances in our home, but we do not refer to her as our CFO. That’s not who she is, she is a wife and a mother.
It makes me nervous when I hear pastors talk about their career goals. My family is not a corporate ladder I am trying to climb. It just doesn’t make any sense to talk about career goals as a parent or a husband. My family is not a business.
All these words give a sense of business rather than family. Another one that I hear a lot is church marketing. We often present Christianity as though Jesus were a product that we had to convince people to buy. Jesus is reduced to the level of a box of laundry detergent or a can of pop. But Jesus is not a product to buy, he is a King to be obeyed. We are not his salesmen, but his heralds. Let us breath the clean air of biblical relationships.

Category: Church, Sermon Excerpt | 1 Comment »
Tags: CEO, Church growth, Family, Marketing, Professionalism

Posted By Brett on May 6, 2011

I saw this and I couldn’t resist posting it.

Category: Humor | Comments Off
Tags: Humor, Osama Bin Laden, Rob Bell

Posted By Brett on April 28, 2011

Category: Ecclesiology, Living, Sermon Excerpt | Comments Off
Tags: Church, mccoook, membership, shoe leather, street theology

Posted By Brett on March 30, 2011

One of the major objections that people raise with regard to the doctrine of hell is that it is unjust to punish for eternity for only a lifetime of sins (75 yrs give or take). I wanted to note a few things in response.

First, that is not an exegetical argument. Scripture is our final authority and this objection does not touch upon what scripture teaches. We would know nothing of the afterlife if it were not for scripture. Unless God reveals something about what happens to us after death, we will know nothing. This is not to say that we cannot ask questions such as these, only that such questions are not sufficient. At some point we have to make our case in scripture.

Second, it seems odd to believe that the unregenerate will become completely holy once they die. But that has to be the presupposition for this objection to work. However, if people continue to sin for eternity, then it is appropriate to punish them for eternity. I like the description that NT Wright gives:

So my way of describing it is that once this life is over, people who have decided not to worship God cease to bear God’s image. The thought of an ex-human being is something that some people find shocking and horrifying. In a sense, it is shocking and horrifying. Think about people we know! I’m sure most people, unless we live in very enclosed worlds, must know some people (if we truly hold to a theology of hell) who are going there! That should give us pause. That should cause us to pray for them and to weep over them. So I don’t say this with any relish at all.

We will not become holy and perfect, we will likely degenerate even more. We will not become more like God. As Wright says, we become like what we worship. For believers that means that we are being conformed to the image of Christ. But for those who have rejected God and refuse to worship him, they continually diverge from the image of Christ. In hell, without God’s common grace helping to restrain sin, people will likely degenerate to even greater levels of sin and therefore merit greater punishment.

Third, can we necessarily equate an eternal punishment with and infinite punishment? Infinite is a measure that needs a unit – infinite apples, infinite love, infinite space, infinite time (eternity). “Eternal” answers the question, “How long?” “Infinite” answers the question “How much?” They are not the same thing. Jesus himself indicated that there would be degrees of punishment in hell. But here is the problem. If eternal in duration means that the punishment is infinite, then everyone will experience an infinite punishment. But if that is the case, then there are not degrees of punishment as Jesus said.

The problem is in assuming that eternal punishment is equal to an infinite punishment. They are not the same. Consider this function: f(x)=1/(1+x^2). The integral of this function is plotted below.

Evaluated from zero to infinity, it resolves to a value of less than 1.571. Not all functions evaluated to infinity result in an infinite value. Asymptotic functions resolve to finite values. This is not to suggest that this is actually how God works the punishment. But it does prove that, in theory, a finite amount of punishment can be experienced over an infinite duration.

This objection against the doctrine of hell has a certain rhetorical flare to it, but it is not really sustainable upon closer examination. Let God be God and develop your doctrine from his revelation, not from your gut.

Category: Apologetics, Eschatology, Hell, Theology | Comments Off
Tags: eternity, Hell, infinity, punishment

Posted By Brett on March 28, 2011

These are all still preliminary comments about all the activity I see surrounding Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. Many people seem confused as to why there would be such an impassioned defense of the doctrine of hell. Why do people love this doctrine so much? Here is my attempt at an asnwer.

IF the traditional doctrine of hell is correct, then if we love people, it would be the most hateful thing in the world to let them go there without sharing the good news of Jesus Christ that would save them from it. It is not because people find hell to be such a beautiful doctrine that they fight for it, it is because people find it to be so horrible that they don’t want anybody to go there.  It is because they love people that they are so motivated. It is like discovering that a bridge is out. You are trying to warn people so that they will not, in the fog, go over the bridge and die. Then someone begins to oppose that message saying, “Naw, the bridge is just fine.” That is something that is very dangerous to say. That is how most people who are convinced of the doctrine of hell react. Perhaps you think they are mistaken and that the bridge really is just fine. In which case they are just inconveniencing a lot of people by insisting that they stop their car. But it is easy to understand why there is such fervency in people’s defense of this doctrine. It is a very important question to answer. If we get it wrong, it could be fatal.

Even rank unbelievers get this. Atheist Penn Jillet (of the Penn & Teller magic team) said the following:

“If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell—or not getting eternal life or whatever—and you think that, well, it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. . . . How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

So if you believe that it is true, how much do you have to hate somebody to tell them that they will have a second chance? Again this is presuming that it is true. I will get to that later. But for now, it is easy to see why some people would give such a passionate defense of the doctrine. They love people and they believe hell is real. How can you not warn people?

Spurgeon has some powerful words as well:

To be laughed at is no great hardship for me. I can delight in scoffs and jeers. . . . But that you should turn from your own mercy, this is my sorrow. Spit on me, but oh repent! Laugh at me, but, oh, believe in my Master! Make my body as the dirt in the streets, but do not damn your own souls. . . If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one person go there unwarned and unprayed for. . . The Holy Spirit will move them by first moving you. If you can rest without their being saved, they will rest, too. But if you are filled with an agony for them, if you cannot bear that they are lost, you will soon find that they are uneasy, too. (HT to Collin Hansen for mining these quotes)

If it is real, how can we not tell people about the good news, and how can we not speak loudly aganst those who seem to urge people to drive over a bridge that we believe is out? This is what is at stake. I would love to be wrong. But when people’s lives are at stake, it seems best that we not treat this as a minor point that doesn’t really matter.

Category: Apologetics, Eschatology, Hell | Comments Off
Tags: Eschatology, Hell, Jillet, Rob Bell, Spurgeon

Posted By Brett on March 24, 2011

Continuing my review of Mars Hill’s clarifying statements.

Does Love Wins promote Universalism?

No. Rob isn’t suggesting Universalism [all will be saved, regardless of their faith]. He is proposing that God’s love is so big that the invitation to God’s grace may extend into the next life so that all could be saved.

Atctually, this is a form of universalism. They wrongly define universalism as “all will be saved, regardless of their faith.” That is one form of universalism (more narrowly known as inclusivism), but there are many varieties, and Rob Bell’s position fits perfectly under the umbrella of universalism. His position (as much as has been revealed thus far) can be what is known as “evangelical universalism” or “hopeful universalism.” There are many different and even contradictory forms of universalism out there. It is improper for them to pick just one and say that they are therefore not a unilateralist. That is a category mistake. It is like saying “My Springer Spaniel is not a dog [German Shepherd].”

Love Wins clearly points to the centrality of Jesus and the work of his life, death, and resurrection and the hope that Christ’s work will bring restoration to all. Jesus is the only way to God. God’s love does not force anyone and there may be those who continue to reject the invitation extended to them. Love Wins speaks often speaks of human freedom [72-73, 103-104, 113, 115, 117]. Rob shares, “Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want.” [113]

There is a tension here. Either some people will continue to resist or love wins all. Both cannot happen. They redefine hell again as just bad experiences we have, but that is not the biblical notion. I would also take exception to the notion that love does not force itself. It sounds nice in the abstract, but at a concrete level it doesn’t work. I love my kids with all my heart, and if my 2 yr old was wondering into the street, and a car was coming, I would forcibly yank them out of the street whether they liked it or not. I don’t see how I could profess to love them if I just let them go.

Some may object that while that may be true in saving the life of an child, it is not true with marrying someone. Love will not force itself. But we are not consigned to hell because we wouldn’t marry Jesus. We are consigned to hell because of our sins and the fact the we reject God’s only means of salvation. Perhaps a better analogy is someone who is drowning. They got into their predicament through their own actions. You throw them a line so that they can grab hold and be saved. They refuse. What do you do? In love do you leave them there, or in love do you jump in to save them? You’re a strong swimmer and you know you can do it. Maybe they will hate you if you actually save them. But what does love compel you to do?

Category: Eschatology, Heaven, Hell | 2 Comments »
Tags: Eschatology, Hell, love, Rob Bell, Universalism

Posted By Brett on March 21, 2011

Continuing my review of the clarifying statement from Bell’s church:

What does Love Wins say about heaven and hell?

Love Wins recognizes heaven and hell to be realities all around us. We see hell everyday through the atrocities of war, famine, human trafficking, broken relationships, and abuse. We also see heaven all around us through acts of love, kindness, and compassion.

The first sentence is a bit anachronistic. Scripture never speaks of “hell on earth.” In contemporary usage of the term I can agree with what is said, there are all kinds of atrocities to which people turn a blind eye. We must never do that. I also agree with the notion of restoring the earth. I think that is part of the logical outworking of the creation mandate, and I think that is part of what the gospel itself entails. God is in the process of rolling back the curse and the church must play a pivitol role in this process. We are his body carrying on his work. So I agree with much of what is said here in contemporary terms.

The danger, however, is in the possibility of confusing our contemporary usage with Biblical usage. Acts of love, kindness, and compassion may be performed by and on non-believers. But you will search in vain for biblical support for unbelievers being in heaven. Likewise, while believers can and do experience some of the most horrific treatments (though not much in the west) there is no biblical evidence for believers going to hell. This sets the stage (especially for lay people) for some very confused theology. They may wrongly infer that believers can experience hell (in the biblical sense) and unbelievers can experience heaven (in the biblical sense). If that is the case, then one’s experience of heaven or hell is not a matter of Jesus at all. It is more a matter of how we position ourselves in this world to minimize our exposure to unpleasant things.

There is also the reality of heaven and hell in the future. Our ultimate future hope is a restored creation under Christ where God will dwell with us forever on a restored heaven and earth [Rev 21-22]. There are many who accept the invitation of the life of heaven and many who reject the invitation.

No real arguments here. I would, however add that I think it can be a present reality too. Scripture speaks of heaven and hell as another realm, separate from earth, to which people go when they die.

Those who reject the invitation experience a purifying “fire” of judgment in hell, yet there is hope.

Here is where we begin to have problems. We have no indication in scripture that you can get out of hell. It is a nice idea, but there is no real biblical support for it. There are vague references with universal language, but nothing specific. Moreover we do have specific references that militate against universalism.

We live in the hope that the redemptive work of Christ is beyond what we can ask or imagine. Love Wins helps us have a biblical imagination that leaves room for the hope of the redemption of all while recognizing humanities free will to continue to reject God.

Amen to the first sentence! I even like the beginning of the second sentence. A “biblical imagination.” I have often contemplated the new heavens and the new earth with my kids. I always make it clear that we are speculating. We spin all kind of fantastic tales! Probably most of it is wrong, but we are told that it is more than we can hope or imagine and so we do just that! We imagine. And when we are done we sit back in awe knowing that while we were probably wrong – whatever we guessed – the reality will be even better.  I also try to imagine what it would be like to have been in certain places within scripture. I imagine the cold on my feet as I read that Peter stepped out of the boat. I imagine the thrill and exhilaration that he must have experienced. But again I hold it all loosely. Biblical imagination.

They used the right words. Our imagination must be limited by what we see as true in scripture. It is at this point that I think they fail. Our fate in the afterlife is determined by our choices in this life. We are not free to imagine things that are contrary to scripture. I will deal more with this in future posts.

Category: Eschatology, Heaven, Hell | Comments Off
Tags: Eschatology, Heaven, Hell, Rob Bell, Universalism

Posted By Brett on March 19, 2011

Mars Hill Church, where Rob Bell is pastor, has issued some clarifying statements regarding his new book. I wanted to comment briefly on some things.

Does Love Wins affirm that Jesus is the only way by which we are saved?

Yes. Love Wins is clear, our only hope for reconciliation with God is found in Jesus alone because of all he accomplished through his life, death and resurrection. Rob shares in Love Wins his belief that the only way to God is through Jesus by quoting and affirming Jesus’ statement, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” [pg. 154]. Mars Hill affirms that Jesus is the only way to inherit salvation, how exactly that happens, however, is a matter of mystery that we do not claim to have all the answers to. As Rob says after quoting Jesus, “What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him” [pg. 154].

I like most of this. But the last two sentences are a bit confusing. It is Christ who saves, but the mechanism is a mystery? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what they mean by “mechanism,” but I would think the mechanism is faith. Jesus was not silent about the need for faith, nor was God unclear in the rest of His word. Faith is the means by which we lay hold of the atoning work of Christ. It is by faith that we are united to Christ.

If by “mechanism” they intend “messenger” then I agree. The messenger is normally people preaching the gospel. But on occasion God may speak directly to people (as with Paul) or he may speak through a dream (as with Cornelius) or through an angel. The normal messenger is people. But the message (the gospel) and faith in that message are essential to salvation and clear in the pages of scripture.

Controversy

Category: Eschatology, Heaven, Hell, Theology | Comments Off
Tags: faith, Gospel, Hell, Rob Bell, Universalism

Posted By Brett on March 18, 2011

Justin Taylor has been come under fire for rendering a provisional value judgment on Rob Bell’s forthcoming book. As Justin explains, “I have not read all of Bell’s book, though I have read some chapters that were sent to me.” This is in addition to Bell’s now notorious video teaser. I find the attacks on Justin misdirected. Why would Bell’s publisher send someone like Justin a sample preview of the book in the first place? I assume publishers do this to gather glowing dust-cover blurbs for the book. “Pre-reviews” which plug a forthcoming title. Therefore, the publisher (with the author’s consent, I assume), is inviting someone like Justin to offer his initial impression of the book.

So it’s difficult to see how Justin wronged the author when his publisher is, in fact, soliciting Justin’s opinion of the book. Isn’t that the point of sending representative chapters of the book? Justin is a prominent figure in Christian publishing. He also runs one of the A-team Christian blogs. Presumably, then, the reason Bell’s publisher sent Justin this material in the first place was to garner a high-profile recommendation. Something to juice sales or preorders. Assuming that’s the case, it’s passing hard to see how he did anything untoward by offering his admittedly provisional judgment of the book. If it turns out that he misjudged the book, that’s the fault of the publisher for sending him misleading material on which to form a preliminary assessment.

Category: Living | 2 Comments »
Tags: Hell, John Piper, Justin Taylor, Rob Bell, Universalism

Posted By Brett on March 17, 2011

This seems like a good definition of what seems to have happened over the last few weeks regarding the release of Rob Bell’s new book Love Wins. There have been some people who have criticized Bell’s book. But then supporters of Bell criticize those who criticize. Some of the most judgmental people in the world are those who object to judgments. Some of the most intolerant people are those who advocate tolerance.

Saying that judgment is wrong is, itself, a judgment. Calling people out for their criticism of another person is, itself, a criticism. These are self-refuting stances. People who take such stances, therefore, reveal themselves to by hypocrites.

One may feel that another person’s judgment was in error, but that is something different from saying that judgment itself is wrong. One may believe that another person’s criticism was unwarranted, but that is something different from whether criticism itself is wrong.

Many of the people are have been criticizing John Piper and Justin Taylor fall into just this category. Both Piper and Taylor believed that Bell’s new book taught universalism.  So they warned people about it. Without any regard for the truthfulness of the warning, people criticized Piper and Taylor for their criticism of Bell. These people raised a stink that a Christian would criticize anyone.  The complaint of these critics was not the substance of Piper and Taylor’s warning, but the mere fact that they criticized at all. This is self-refuting and hypocritical.

Category: Eschatology, Hell, Living, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Tags: criticism, Hell, John Piper, judgment, Justin Taylor, Rob Bell, Universalism